Climate change and habitat fragmentation are interacting threats: it is likely that many species cannot reach newly suitable areas at the cool edge of their range because there is not enough habitat, in the right places, to support range expansion over multiple generations. Conservation efforts are already underway to restore large areas of habitat, and to improve the “connectivity” within networks of habitat. However, there are multiple ways of measuring connectivity and few of them address the scale of shifts that are likely to be needed under climate change. This could be a problem if it leads to inefficient conservation prioritisation.
The Conductance Metric
How conductance generally depends on the amount of habitat in the landscape. Squares show the conductance of landscapes with a random selection of cells chosen to be habitat. The red line is based only on the 100% point and the expectation that conductance is proportional to amount of habitat squared.
We first developed the conductance metric in 2012 and we found that it is correlated to the speed with which a species can spread through a landscape, from a specified source location to a specified target. A key difference between this and most other connectivity metrics is that it incorporates both reproduction within habitat patches and dispersal between habitat patches, over multiple generations (further explanation here). Sometimes there could be many very well-connected patches in a network, and yet no easy way for a species to cross the landscape from end to end. This could be a problem for the species’ survival, if staying within its current regions of occupancy is unsustainable, for example if it is being pushed northwards by climate change. Continue reading →
Studies of ecosystem function are studies of action: of insects pollinating flowers, of predators killing pests – and in our case (well, more often than not) of beetles disposing of dung. To isolate the effects of the critters that we think will matter, we need to selectively include or exclude them. If we think a particular species or species group is responsible for a certain function, then we test this by keeping it in or out of enclosures. If we want to look at effects of species diversity, then we create communities of different species richness.
Depending on the target organism, this is sometimes easy and sometimes difficult. But it almost invariably proves to be fun! We enjoy the challenge of inventing new techniques for unravelling ecosystem functions sustained by insects. Working on dung beetles – as we tend to do – can be messy, but it’s definitely never boring.
In targeting ecosystem functions, the real trick is to make the experiments relevant. What we want to understand are the effects of changes occurring in the real world. All too often studies of ecosystem functions have been focused on artificial species pools in artificial settings. To see how we have solved this, we’ll give you a quick look at our dungy portfolio of approaches to date. Continue reading →